<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (1) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8356</link>
    <description>Interest on borrowed capital used for business was deductible once the borrowing for business purposes was established under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The fact that the assessee charged a lower rate of interest on its own advances, including to connected persons, did not justify reducing the statutory deduction for interest actually paid on the borrowed funds. The partial disallowance was therefore not warranted, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8356</link>
      <description>Interest on borrowed capital used for business was deductible once the borrowing for business purposes was established under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The fact that the assessee charged a lower rate of interest on its own advances, including to connected persons, did not justify reducing the statutory deduction for interest actually paid on the borrowed funds. The partial disallowance was therefore not warranted, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>